alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Treasure Mountain  Holdings,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  on Form 10- QSB for the period  ending June 30, 2003, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), Lane Clissold,  Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  Sec.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to Sec.  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
         material respects,  the financial condition and result of operations of
         the Company.


/s/   Lane Clissold
-------------------
      Lane Clissold
      Principal Accounting Officer
      August 13, 2003

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
         other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
         signature that appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of
         this  written  statement  has been  provided to the Company and will be
         retained by the Company and  furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange
         Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing  certifications are
         accompanying  the Company's Form 10-QSB solely  pursuant to section 906
         of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section
         1350,  chapter  63 of title 18,  United  States  Code) and is not being
         filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
                                       1
# C_2010148EN.01002201.xml

| 5.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/22

---

Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 19 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-307/08) (1)

1

2010/C 148/34

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008

1

---
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      Exhibit 11
                    POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                        FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31

                  (Figures and amounts expressed in thousands,
                    except per share and per option amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            1998       1997       1996       1995       1994
                                                        ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------  --------
<S>    <C>                                              <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
A      Net income as reported, Canadian GAAP..........  $261,003   $297,138   $209,036   $159,486   $91,219
B      Items adjusting net income.....................         0    (11,382)    (7,216)    18,598    (4,539)
C      Net income, US GAAP (A + B)....................  $261,003   $285,756   $201,820   $178,084   $86,680
D      Weighted average number of shares outstanding..    54,177     52,275     45,537     43,352    42,872
E      Options outstanding - opening..................     2,123      1,571      1,253        901       641
F      Options granted during the year................       824        890        592        495       408
F1     number of days outstanding.....................        56         55         54         54        55
G      Average exercise price per option..............  $  70.35   $  68.11   $  52.90   $  34.74   $ 18.00
H      Average market price per share.................  $  74.65   $  82.60   $  70.33   $  52.44   $ 29.81
I      Period end market price per share..............  $  63.88   $  83.00   $  85.00   $  70.88   $ 34.00
J      Rate of return available on option proceeds....         5%         5%         5%         5%        5%

Canadian GAAP
       Basic earnings per share (A/D).................  $   4.82   $   5.68   $   4.59   $   3.68   $  2.13
       Fully diluted earnings per share
K      Imputed earnings on option proceeds............  $  7,912   $  5,807   $  3,546   $  1,565   $   577
       (E*G*J)+(F*F1/365*G*J)
       Fully diluted earnings per share...............  $   4.77   $   5.61   $   4.53   $   3.63   $  2.11
       (A+K)/(D+E)+(F*F1/365)

United States GAAP
       Basic earnings per share (C/D).................  $   4.82   $   5.47   $   4.43   $   4.11   $  2.02

       Fully diluted earnings per share
L      Net additional shares issuable.................       170        432        457        471       416
       (E+F)-((E+F)*G/H)
       Fully diluted earnings per share  (C/(D+L))....  $   4.80   $   5.42   $   4.39   $   4.06   $  2.00
</TABLE>
# C_2020209EN.01002202.xml

| 22.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Armani v EUIPO — Asunción (le Sac 11)

(Case T-654/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark le sac 11 - Earlier national word mark LESAC and earlier national figurative marks lesac - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 209/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Armani SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: S. Martínez-Almeida y Alejos-Pita, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Felipe Domingo Asunción (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 August 2018 (Case R 2464/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Asunción and Giorgio Armani.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Giorgio Armani SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Giorgio Armani SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---
¿Posee o trabaja 

con aves de corral?

Protejamos juntos la salud 

de nuestras aves de corral.

Servicio de Inspección de Sanidad de Animales y Plantas 
1. Siempre ponga en práctica la buena bioseguridad.

 Consulte los 14 Principios de Bioseguridad del Plan Nacional de Mejoramiento 

Avícola (National Poultry Improvement Plan, NPIP) (www.poultryimprovement.

org/documents/StandardE-BiosecurityPrinciples.pdf) y diseñe un plan de 

bioseguridad para sus instalaciones. 

2. Recuerde lavarse las manos antes y después de tener contacto con 

aves de corral. 

Si no dispone de agua y jabón, use desinfectante para manos.

3. Protéjase. 

No bese ni abrace a sus aves. 

4. Proteja a sus aves de corral.

 Implemente programas de control para las aves silvestres (incluyendo sus 

heces y sus plumas), roedores e insectos. Limpie y desinfecte los equipos 

avícolas antes y después de usarlos.

5. Supervise la salud de su bandada.

 Conozca los signos de enfermedad y revise diariamente a su bandada para 

detectar signos de enfermedades. Coloque en cuarentena a las aves 

enfermas de inmediato.

6. ¡Reporte las aves enfermas!

 Comuníquese con el Departamento de Agricultura de los EE. UU. (United 

States Department of Agriculture, USDA) de forma gratuita al 1.866.536.7593

para ponerse en contacto con nuestros veterinarios. El USDA puede realizar 

pruebas gratuitas a sus aves para asegurarse de que no tengan una 

enfermedad grave característica de las aves de corral.

Para obtener recursos gratuitos y más información 

sobre una buena bioseguridad, visite: 

www.aphis.usda.gov/animalhealth/defendtheflock

Protejamos juntos la salud de nuestras aves de corral

Ayuda de Programa N° 2248S | Expedida en septiembre de 2019

El USDA es un proveedor y empleador que brinda igualdad de oportunidades. 

Use estos consejos básicos para proteger la 

salud de sus aves y prevenir la propagación de 

enfermedades graves, como la gripe aviar y la 

enfermedad de Newcastle.
Section 333 Exemption Request

Marshall	D		(MD)	Bucey

99	Redwater	Drive

New	Concord	Ky

(270)-436-2660	Home

(901)-634-5022	Cell

mdbucey@gmail.com Email

I am	requesting	exemption	under	section	333	for	the	operation	of	drones	in	

conducting	personal	and	business	opportunities	for	over	200	feet.		The	reasons	for	

the	exemption	is	to	allow	for	a	fifty-foot	safety	zone	for	any	subject	or	shoot	where	

plant	life	or buildings	exceed	200	feet	up	to	350	feet.	I	request	as	trees	and	some	

larger	multi	story	buildings	such	as	high	rises,	grain	silos,	and	barns	can	exceed,	

with	the	fifty-foot	safety	buffer	zone	an	exemption	of	up	to	but	not	to	exceed	400	

feet.	Due	to	the	density	of	some	of	the	probable	shoots	and	the	use	of	my	drone(s)	in	

video	production	Line	of	sight	may	at	times	be	obstructed	I	request	an	additional	

exemption	of	the	Line	of	Sight	requirements.

In	compliance	with	the	FAA	guidelines	that	consider	public	safety	and	privacy	all	

flights	will	be	conducted	on	what	is	considered	a	“Closed	or	Permission	granted”	set	

or	area.	So	these	flights, usually	under	200-300	feet,	will	be	kept	in	a	logbook	with	

the	address	and/or	GPS	location	flight	duration	and	still	photos of	the	subject	of	the	

flight.	For	flights	where	it	is	determined,	the	UAS	GPS	weigh	point	navigation	system	

would	be	required	due	to	a	lack	of	continuous	Line	of	Sight	in	the	flight	log	will	be	a	

flight	plan	detailing	the	flight	path	with	marked	weigh	points.	All	raw	footage	and	

copies	of	final	edited	video	or	photographic	materials	obtained	during	operation	

will	also	be	kept	with	the	log	of	any	given	flight	to	insure	any	video	obtained	and	

used	by	Mr	Bucey	or	someone	he	has	requested	he	provide	service	to show	that	all	

means	possible	where	done	to	insure	privacy	or	permission	to	use	video.	Any	flight	

where	people	or	livestock	is	involved	there	will	be	a	safety	brief	explaining	the	

location	of	the	take	off	and	operation	area,	take	off	procedures,	the	five	to	fifty	foot	

safety	zone,	Emergency	flight	procedure,	use	of	the	fifty	foot	return	to	home	before	

landing	requirement	and	final	landing	procedures	(all	predetermined	before	flight).		

All	flights	will	undergo	a	preflight	and	post	flight	inspection	and	a	copy	of	both	will	

be	added	to	the	log.	

Lay	out	of	Flight	Logs:

Pre	flight	summery	report	(	detailing	information	from	the	on	sight	look	of	area	to	

be	shot	with	the	drone)

Preflight	Check

Safety	Brief

Consent	and	release	forms

Flight	plans

Location	of	designated	Take	off,	landing,	and	operation(	ground	station)	zone

CD	and/or	hard	copy	of	photos	both	pre	editing	and	post	editing
Flight	duration(s)	log.

Post	flight	check
15972

#### Houston v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh

November 27, 1996

Order No. 96-41

Affirmed
#### Kaeir’s Estate.

*Practice, Supreme Court*— Appeals—Interlocutory *order*— Quash*ing appeal.*

Where the orphans’ court dismisses exceptions to an account with a further order that a “decree of distribution be prepared in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion,” such order is merely interlocutory, and no appeal can be taken until the decree is absolutely confirmed.

*225Argued Feb. 18,1919.

Appeal, No. 226, Jan. T., 1919, by Emily Amelia Kaeir et al., from decree of O. C. Schuylkill Co., Sept. T., 1916, No. 2, dismissing exceptions to an executor’s account in estate of Margaret C. Kaeir, deceased.

Before Brown, C. J., Stewart, Moschzisker, .Walling and Kephart, JJ.

Appeal quashed.

Exceptions to account of an executor.

*Errors assigned*were in dismissing exceptions to the account.

*Edmund D. Smith,*with him James J. *Moran*and J. *H. Garrahan,*for appellants.

*A. D. Knittle,*with him *T. H. B. Lyon*and D. *W. Kaereher,*for appellees.

*G. E. Gerber,*with him *W. P. Ramsay,*for Marie F. Elliott, appellee.

*Jno. F. Whalen,*with him *George Ellis,*for Josephine Haughney, appellee.

March 24, 1919:

Per Curiam,

After dismissing the exceptions to the account of the appellees, the order of the court was, “Let a decree of distribution be prepared in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion.” Until such decree is absolutely confirmed there will be no final action by the court below from which an appeal will lie. What has been appealed from is merely interlocutory: Hoyt’s Est., 232 Pa. 189.

Appeal quashed.
20179

#### State v. Kalani

Dismissed
# C_2021019EN.01000901.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 November 2020 — Stephan Fleig v European External Action Service

(Case C-446/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil Service - Contract staff - European External Action Service (EEAS) - Article 47(c)(i) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union - Termination of a contract of indefinite duration - Occupational disease - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Right to a fair hearing - Second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Duty of care - Articles 30 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Distortion of the facts - Scope of judicial review)

(2021/C 19/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Stephan Fleig (represented by: H. Tettenborn, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R.C. Weiss, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Stephan Fleig to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Stephan Fleig to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5405]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair 
will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules 
on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on which 
the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule XX.
  Record votes on postponed questions will be taken later.

                          ____________________
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 28, 2009 

d0921 

Order 

 

September 28, 2009 

138750 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138750 

 COA: 288651 

Wayne CC: 00-010816-01 

DAVID CASTANEDA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 9, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion 

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
CENTEX CORPORATION
EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
 DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT  May 7, 2008 Award
 Centex Corporation
    SECTION 1. The Plan.
  SECTION 2. Amount of Award.
  SECTION 3. Terms of Award.
 3.1. Account.
 1




---



##### 



3.2. Beneficiary.
 3.3. Interest.
 3.4. Vesting.
  2




---



##### 



Vesting Percentage ofVesting Dates
    
    Deferred Cash CompensationMarch 31, 2009
    
    
    33.33
    %March 31, 2010
    
    
    33.33
    %March 31, 2011
    
    
    33.34
    %100.00
    %
 3.5. Timing and Form of Distribution
  3.6. Tax Withholding.
 SECTION 4. General Provisions.
 4.1.
 3




---



##### 



4.2.
 4.3.
  PARTICIPANTCENTEX CORPORATIONBy:Timothy R. EllerChairman & Chief Executive Officer 4
Exhibit






AMENDMENT TO THE BROADCOM CORPORATION 1998 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
February 1, 2016


This Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Broadcom Corporation 1998 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended and restated November 11, 2010 (as amended, the “Plan”) is effective as of the date first set forth above, such amendment being approved by the Board of Directors of Broadcom Limited (the “Company”) pursuant to Article Five, Section IV.A of the Plan.  The Plan is hereby amended as follows:


		
	1.
	All references to the “Corporation,” “Broadcom Corporation” or “Broadcom Corporation, a California corporation” in the Plan shall refer to the Company. The following will replace Section F of the Appendix to the Plan in its entirety:


“F.   Corporation shall mean Broadcom Limited (Registration No. 201505572G), a limited company incorporated under the Republic of Singapore.”
		
	2.
	All references to “stock,” “common stock,” “shares of common stock” or other similar terms in the Plan shall refer to the ordinary shares of the Corporation. All references to “shares of Common Stock,” “Class A Common Stock” or “Common Stock” in the Plan shall be deleted and replaced with “Shares”.


		
	3.
	The following will replace Section E of the Appendix of the Plan in its entirety: “E.    Shares means the ordinary shares of the Company, no par value.”


		
	4.
	Article One, Section V.B of the Plan and all references thereto will be deleted in their entirety.


		
	5.
	Clause (vii) of Article One, Section V.E. will be deleted in its entirety.


		
	6.
	The following will replace Article Four of the Plan in its entirety:


“ARTICLE FOUR
[Intentionally Omitted.]”


		
	7.
	All references to Article Four of the Plan and to the “Director Automatic Grant Program” will be deleted in their entirety.  The following will replace Section H of the Appendix of the Plan in its entirety:


“H.  [Intentionally Omitted.]”
		
	8.
	Except as provided in this Amendment, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.




*    *    *    *    *
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

RALIEGH SCOTT, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3804

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

 )

Opinion filed June 19, 2019. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee 

County; Thomas S. Reese and Margaret 

O. Steinbeck, Judges.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Tosha Cohen, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

BLACK, SALARIO, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer 

CENTER FOR VETERINARY BIOLOGICS NOTICE NO. 18-02 

 

TO: Veterinary Services Leadership Team 

 Directors, Center for Veterinary Biologics 

 Biologics Licensees, Permittees, and Applicants 

 State Veterinarians 

 

FROM: Byron E. Rippke 

 Director 

SUBJECT: Issuance of a Conditional License for Avian Paramyxovirus Vaccine, 

Type 1, Killed Virus 

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has issued a conditional 

United States Veterinary Biological Product License to Arko Laboratories Ltd., 

Establishment No. 337, Jewell, Iowa, for the manufacture and distribution of Avian 

Paramyxovirus Vaccine, Type 1, Killed Virus. 

A veterinary biological product regulated under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act must be 

shown to be pure, safe, potent, and efficacious before a veterinary biological product 

license may be issued. The regulations in title 9, Code of Federal Regulations, part 

102, regarding the licensing of veterinary biological products provide that a 

conditional veterinary biological product license may be issued to meet an emergency 

condition, limited market, local situation, or special circumstance. The special 

circumstance addressed here is the availability of a vaccine against avian 

paramyxovirus type I approved for use in pigeons. 

Conditionally licensed products are required to be pure and safe and have a 

reasonable expectation of efficacy. This conditional license was issued on the basis 

that the licensee has demonstrated that the product has a reasonable expectation of 

efficacy. Safety of the product has been established through a safety study. APHIS 

will evaluate their progress throughout the next year. The conditional license will 

expire 1 year from the date of the license. 

 Animal and Plant 

 Health Inspection 

 Service 

 Veterinary Services 

 Center for Veterinary 

 Biologics 

 1920 Dayton Avenue 

 PO Box 844 

 Ames, IA 50010 

 (515) 337-6100